=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2830/paper5
|storemode=property
|title=Methods of Justification of Effective Demographic Policy
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2830/paper5.pdf
|volume=Vol-2830
|authors=Nikolay Tikhomirov,Tatiana Tikhomirova
}}
==Methods of Justification of Effective Demographic Policy==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2830/paper5.pdf
Methods of Justification of Effective Demographic Policy
Nikolay P. Tikhomirov[0000-0002-0282-1553] and Tatiana M. Tikhomirova[0000-0003-3149-7673]
Plekhanov Russian University of Economics,
36 Stremyanny lane, Moscow, 115998, Russia
nik.tikhomirov.46@mail.ru, t_tikhomirova@mail.ru
Abstract. The article considers approaches to justification of effective courses
of demographic policy, that ensures the shift from depopulation to a regime of
sustainable growth of population in Russia and its regions. These approaches
are based on estimates of indicators, which objectively characterize determined
by the observed values of sex and age-specific fertility and mortality rates the
potential of population self-reproduction, regardless of its gender and age struc-
ture, and on the identification of patterns of this potential in the current living
conditions using econometric methods. As such indicators, we consider margin-
al and standardized population growth rates, determined on the basis of age-
specific fertility and mortality rates of females of age not older than 49 years
and age-specific natural movement rates for male and female population, re-
spectively.
The paper presents results of the study, which indicate that the shift to a sus-
tainable population growth in Russia in the future is mainly associated with an
increase in the fertility rate, the necessary conditions of which are a significant
increase in income and the strengthening of incentive measures.
Keywords: population growth rates, fertility, mortality, living conditions, so-
cio-economic policy, econometric modeling.
1 Introduction
The ongoing since the beginning of the 90s of the last century demographic crisis in
Russia, characterized by an excess of mortality over fertility and, as a consequence, a
reduction in the population and labor resources, not only negatively affects the coun-
try’s economic development and living standards, but also threatens its existence as a
single state. In this case, the problems of developing a justified demographic policy,
that can ensure sustainable self-reproduction of the population in the Russian Federa-
tion and its regions over a long period of time, are actualized. Such policies, if neces-
sary, must take into account the patterns of natural movement, which are formed un-
der the influence of changing living conditions, including used in the country
measures to stimulate fertility and reduce mortality [1, 2, 3].
These patterns can be identified by analyzing the trends of reliable and objective
estimates of indicators of the intensity of population natural movement in the past,
carried out, for example, by econometric modeling methods [4, 5, 6]. In this regard,
we note that as such indicators it is incorrect to consider the general fertility, mortality
Proceedings of the 10th International Scientific and Practical Conference named after A. I. Kitov
"Information Technologies and Mathematical Methods in Economics and Management
(IT&MM-2020)", October 15-16, 2020, Moscow, Russia
© 2021 Copyright for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
and natural growth rates, due to their dependence not only on age-related indicators of
natural movement, characterizing the population’s potential for self-reproduction, but
also on its sex and age structure, which in Russia varies significantly over time (the
phenomenon of demographic waves). In particular, the natural population decline in
Russia in the period 1990-2003, amounting to approximately 800-900 thousand peo-
ple per year, was largely due to a significant, compared with 1989, decrease in the
proportion (and number) of people at age 20-40 and an increase in the proportion of
people of older age groups. This resulted in the period 1990-1999 to a significant
decrease in the total fertility rate from 13.4‰ to 8.3‰, and an increase in the overall
mortality rate from 11.2‰ to 14.7‰. Taking the levels of age-specific fertility and
mortality rates, observed in 1999, and maintaining the age structure of the population
in 1989, the total fertility rate in the country would be 9.3 ‰, and the mortality rate –
13.0‰ [7, 8]. The data presented indicate, that the unfavorable phase of the demo-
graphic wave, that occurred during this period, contributed to a significant decrease in
the natural growth rate of the Russian population in 1999 to minus 6.4‰, versus mi-
nus 3.7‰, which could have occurred with the age and sex structure of the population
of 1989.
On the contrary, in the period from 2006 to 2015, a favorable phase of the demo-
graphic wave was observed in the age structure of the Russian population, which was
characterized by an increase in the proportion (and number) of females aged 20-34
and relative stabilization after 2010 of the proportion of people aged over 50 years at
the level about 34%. These shifts in the age structure of the population, along with an
increase in age-specific fertility rates of females and a decrease in sex and age-
specific mortality rates in almost all age groups of males and females, led to the fact
that in 2013-2015 the values of the total fertility and mortality rates were 13.3‰ and
13.1‰, respectively, and, thus, the natural increase exceeded the zero level. However,
after 2015, the demographic wave phase, unfavorable for population growth, again
formed on the age structure of the population of Russia, and its natural increase again
became negative, which was to some extent also due to a decrease in age-specific
fertility rates.
2 Methods
In a situation of significant influence of demographic waves on the population growth
rate, it is advisable to express the regime of its natural reproduction by indicators, that
depend only on age-specific fertility and mortality rates, the set of which characterizes
the demographic potential available for the corresponding year. Such indicators in-
clude the marginal growth rate of population, its standardized counterpart, calculated
on a basis of a constant standardized sex and age structure, and the population net
reproduction rate (NR) [9, 10, 11].
The marginal growth rate (GR) is calculated for a specific year and represents the
population growth rate over a certain period (usually five years), which will be estab-
lished in the long run, provided that the age-specific fertility and mortality rates of
females under 50 in annual or five-year age groups, respectively, on the basis of
which its value is estimated, will remain at the level of the year under consideration.
In an algebraic sense, this indicator represents the largest root (Perron root) of the
characteristic equation of the matrix of age-specific coefficients of natural movement
(annual or five-year) of the population. Accordingly, based on annual coefficients, the
marginal population growth rate for a year is estimated, and on the basis of five-year
ones, for five years. However, due to the block structure of this matrix, its value is
estimated only by the block of coefficients of natural movement of females under 50
years old. Taking this into account, its characteristic equation can be represented as
follows:
r i 1
r r i bi pi r r m1 bm1 p1 ... pm
i m1 j 1 (1)
r m2 bm 2 p1 ... pm1 ... br p1 ... pr 1 0
where λ is the root of the characteristic equation; θ is the proportion of girls among
newborns (in average 0.488); bi is the fertility rate in i-th age group of females,
which corresponds to the age interval from (i 1) to τ years old, 1 or 5 years;
p j is the survival rate of females of j-th age group from (i 1) to τ years (the prob-
ability of transition from (i 1) -th to i-th age group), which is determined on the
basis of age-specific mortality rates q j as p j 1 q j .
The indices i m 1, r characterize the fertile age groups of females (as a rule, at
the ages of 15 to 49 years).
Net reproduction rate (NR) is a quantitative measure of the replacement of the ma-
ternal generation with the daughter. It determines the average number of daughters,
born to a female in a lifetime and survived to the age of the mother, under considered
values of the age-specific fertility and mortality rates of females under 50 years old.
In an algebraic sense, this indicator is defined as the sum of the coefficients for un-
known r i , i m 1, r on the right side of the characteristic equation (1):
NR bm1 p1 ... pm bm2 p1 ... pm1 ... br p1 ... pr 1 (2)
Note that when evaluating these indicators, the fertility rate of boys and the mortality
of the entire male and female population over 49 years old are not taken into account.
The standardized growth rate (SGR) for each year is estimated by the difference
between the general standardized fertility (STFR) and mortality rates (STMR) of the
entire population, calculated by its standardized age structure and fixed in that year
the fertility and mortality rates for female and male age groups. Its expression has the
following form [12]:
SGRt 1 STFRt ( x ) STMRt ( x ) (3)
where STFRt ( x ) and STMRt ( x ) are the standardized general fertility and mortality
rates, calculated according to the following expressions, respectively:
2 r 2 M
STFR( x ) bki x1i , STMR( x ) qki xki , (4)
k 1i m1 k 1i 1
where bki are fertility rates of girls (k 1) and boys (k 2) in i-th female age
group; qki are mortality rates of females (k 1) and males (k 2) in i-th age group;
xki are normalized proportions of female and male age groups in the standardized
structure of population, represented by a vector x ( x11,..., x1M , x21,..., x2M ) , that
satisfies the following ratio:
2 M
xki 1 (5)
k 1 i 1
When assessing SGR, the problem arises of choosing a standardized age structure of
the population, which should not depend on demographic waves. As such a structure,
one can consider the marginal structure of the population, corresponding to the Perron
root of the matrix of age-specific coefficients of its natural movement [10, 12], or a
structure, formed taking into account the patterns of retirement of females and males,
predetermined by the values of their age-specific mortality rates, examples of which
are given in the work [12]. For Russia, it is inexpedient to use as such a structure the
real population structure of any year, for example, 1990, 2000, 2010, since each of
them has a particular phase of the demographic wave.
Using the marginal GR and standardized population growth rates of SGR and NR,
it is simple enough to identify the mode of demographic reproduction in the current
period. Values of these indicators, exceeding the value 1, correspond to the expanded
population reproduction regime, equal to 1 – to the stationary population regime, less
than 1 – to depopulation.
Estimates of marginal and standardized growth rates may vary slightly. Compared
to the marginal growth rate, its standardized counterpart is increasing by taking into
account the fertility rate of boys and decreasing due to the mortality rate of males of
all ages and females older than 50 years old. In addition, certain differences in the
values of these indicators may be due to the specific features of the methods for their
assessment.
3 Results
Estimates of the five-year marginal and standardized growth rates for Russian popula-
tion in certain years of the 21st century, obtained on the basis of the corresponding
fertility and mortality rates, observed in these years, indicate that the first indicator is
still slightly less than the second, as presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Marginal and standardized population growth rates for Russia in 2008-2016.
Years GR SGR
2008 0.947 0.993
2010 0.955 0.999
2014 0.973 1.005
2016 0.975 1.005
It sounds interesting to consider the patterns of the reproduction regime of the popula-
tion of Russia and its regions, united in the framework of three homogeneous by their
characteristics regional clusters, in the 21st century as an example of a five-year mar-
ginal growth rate, which is a more stringent indicator of the intensity of this process
compared to its standardized analogue (see Table 2).
With respect to NR, note that its variability is characterized by greater dynamism
(see Table 2). In addition, the content of this indicator does not adequately reflect the
intensity of the population reproduction process. As a result, NR is less convenient
when analyzing its patterns.
Table 2. Marginal indicators of the population reproduction regime of Russia and its regional
clusters for 2000-2019.
Year 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2019
Russia in a whole
Five-
year
0,9045 0,9226 0,9232 0,9520 0,9673 0,9757 0,9600 0,9586
growth
rate
Annual
growth 0,9801 0,9840 0,9842 0,9902 0,9934 0,9951 0,9919 0,9916
rate
Five-
0,5640 0,6269 0,6267 0,7448 0,8169 0,8593 0,7681 0,7553
year NR
Five-year marginal growth rate by clusters
Cluster 1 0,9223 0,9406 0,9407 0,9675 0,9855 0,9925 0,9713 0,9685
Cluster 2 0,9049 0,9245 0,9254 0,9550 0,9715 0,9777 0,9564 0,9537
Cluster 3 0,8922 0,9100 0,9099 0,9364 0,9509 0,9616 0,9423 0,9394
Among the regions, 4 outliers were also identified, which are significantly different
from the clustered administrative entities according to the laws of the process under
consideration. The composition of regional clusters is presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Composition of homogeneous and outlier in terms of the marginal growth rate in the
period 2000-2019 clusters of Russian regions.
Cluster Russian regions
Jewish Autonomous Region, Chukotka Autonomous Okrug.
Regions: Amur, Astrakhan, Vologda, Irkutsk, Kurgan, Orenburg, Sakhalin,
Cluster 1 Tyumen.
Republics: Bashkortostan, Kalmykia, Komi, Mari El, North Ossetia-Alania,
Khakassia, Udmurtia.
Territories: Transbaikal, Perm.
Regions: Arkhangelsk, Kemerovo, Kirov, Kostroma, Magadan, Novgorod,
Novosibirsk, Omsk, Pskov, Sverdlovsk, Tver, Chelyabinsk.
Republics: Adygea, Kabardino-Balkarian, Karachay-Cherkess, Karelia,
Cluster 2
Tatarstan, Chuvash.
Territories: Altai, Kamchatka, Krasnodar, Krasnoyarsk, Primorsky,
Khabarovsk.
Moscow, St. Petersburg.
Regions: Belgorod, Bryansk, Vladimir, Volgograd, Voronezh, Ivanovo,
Kaliningrad, Kaluga, Kursk, Lipetsk, Moscow, Murmansk, Nizhny Novgorod,
Cluster 3 Oryol, Penza, Rostov, Ryazan, Samara, Saratov, Smolensk, Tambov, Tomsk,
Tula, Ulyanovsk, Yaroslavl.
Republics: Mordovia.
Territories: Stavropol.
Outlier Regions: Leningrad.
regions Republics: Altai, Buryatia, Dagestan, Ingushetia, Sakha (Yakutia), Tuva.
The data, presented in Table 2, indicate that in Russia and in all its regional clusters
the trends in the marginal growth rate were the same. Moreover, the values of this
indicator in the second cluster practically coincided with the average Russian ones.
Intercluster differences in its values can be explained by the difference in the levels of
age-specific fertility rates, due to regional characteristics of demographic behavior
and lifestyle of the population. In particular, in the regions of the first cluster, which
are characterized by higher values of the indicator under consideration, the levels of
fertility rates in the most “prolific” age groups of women from 20 to 34 years during
the entire period under review were approximately 20% and 30% higher than in the
second and third, respectively. Differences in the values of age-specific mortality
rates for both females and males in the regions of Russia during the period under re-
view were less significant.
The data, given in Table 2, also indicate, that during the period under review both
in Russia and in most of its regions the regime of expanded reproduction of the popu-
lation was not achieved. Moreover, after 2015, the marginal growth rate in these re-
gions and in Russia as a whole began to decline again. At the same time, in some
regions of the country included in the first cluster or classified as outlier, this regime,
characterized by a marginal growth rate greater than 1, was nevertheless observed in
the period under review up to 2017. In particular, in the Republics of Tuva, Altai and
Ingushetia, this excess has occurred since 2007, in the Republics of Sakha (Yakutia)
and Buryatia – from 2012-2013, in the Kurgan and Tyumen regions – from 2013-
2014. This is largely due to the fact that these regions are characterized by high pro-
portion of the rural population, the marginal growth rate of which in Russia was much
higher than that of the urban population, again due to higher fertility (see Fig. 1).
1,05
Growth rates, dimensionless
Stationary population growth rate
1,00
0,95
0,90
0,85
1991
1992
1993
1996
1997
1998
2001
2002
2005
2006
2007
2010
2011
2012
2015
2016
1990
1994
1995
1999
2000
2003
2004
2008
2009
2013
2014
2017
2018
2019
Total Urban Rural Years
Fig. 1. Five-year growth rates of rural, urban and total population in Russia in 1990-2019
The main reason for the growth of this indicator of the self-reproduction regime in
Russia in the period 2000-2015, in our opinion, was the increase in average per capita
incomes of the population by an average of 10% per year until 2008 and by 3-4% in
the further, to 2014. After 2005, the growth of this indicator was also due to the
measures, introduced in the country to stimulate the birth rate and, above all, the
payments of federal and regional maternal capital. In particular, only for 2011-2016
the amount of family and maternal benefits, paid in Russia, increased at current prices
by more than 60% (from 464.4 billion rubles to 747.8 billion rubles). In comparable
prices, the growth of this indicator is estimated at about 35%. To a certain extent, the
growth of this indicator was also due to a decrease in mortality due to an increase in
health care expenditures and an improvement in the social situation in the country
[13, 14, 15]. In particular, health care expenditures in 2011-2016 amounted to 3.2-
3.6% of GDP, while in 1995-2000 together with expenditures on physical education
and sports, they did not exceed 2.2% of GDP.
At the same time, from the point of view of increasing population growth rates, a
decrease in mortality is a significantly less effective factor compared to an increase in
the fertility rate. This is evidenced by the ratio of the coefficients of elasticity of the
marginal growth rate to changes in age-specific indicators of fertility rates of girls and
mortality both in certain age groups of females at childbearing age and throughout the
female population under the age of 50. As shown in [12], in the depopulation area, i.e.
when GR <1, the ratio of the absolute values of these elasticities in a separate group
of females at childbearing age is approximately determined by the following expres-
sion:
El (1 ) b1i b1i
(6)
El (1 ) q1i q1i
where El (1) b1i and El (1) q1i are the elasticities of the marginal growth rate by
the fertility rate of girls b1i and mortality of females of i-th age group q1i respective-
ly.
Note that in accordance with expression (3), a similar ratio of elasticity indicators
of a standardized growth rate in terms of fertility and mortality rates for females of the
i-th group is exactly equal to its right side.
Putting into expression (6) the values of the coefficients of natural movement of
females at childbearing age, observed in the period 2000-2019 in Russia, it is easy to
verify, that the relative increase in the marginal growth rate of the country’s popula-
tion due to an increase in the fertility rate of girls by a certain percentage in the age
group of females at age 20-24 years old is more than 50 times higher, than due to the
same decrease in mortality. In the age group of females at age 25-29 years old, the
ratio between these coefficients is about 40 times, in the group of 30-34 years old it is
about 17-20 times. This conclusion is also confirmed by the results of simulation
modeling of marginal growth rate depending on changes in the totality of age-specific
fertility rates of girls and mortality rates for Russian females not older than 50 years
old. These results indicate that the growth of this indicator, due to an increase in the
birth rate by a certain percentage, is more than 30 times higher than its growth due to
a decrease in the death rate by the same percentage.
The fact that an increase in the living standards of the population of Russia is the
main condition for increasing the rate of its natural self-reproduction, is also indicated
by the decrease in its marginal values, that began after 2015, apparently due to a sig-
nificant reduction in incomes per capita in the country, which led to a decrease in the
fertility rate. In particular, the five-year population growth rate in Russia decreased by
2019 compared to 2015 from 0.976 to 0.959. In the urban population, it decreased
from 0.968 to 0.951 and in the rural population, from 1.001 to 0.983. Note that, com-
pared to 2015, by 2019, the average income per capita of the population of Russia
decreased by more than 10%. Moreover, a slight increase in the size of federal and
regional maternal capital could not compensate for the negative impact of lower in-
comes on the growth rate of the Russian population during this period [15].
4 Discussion
The mentioned patterns in the dynamics of the marginal growth rate of the Russian
population in the period 2000-2019 are quite well explained by econometric models.
In particular, one of their most reliable ones, characterized by a determination coeffi-
cient above 99%, has the following form:
yt 0.523 x10.035
t x20.130
t x30.008
t x4t0.029 (7)
which indicates, that the increase in the marginal growth rate of the Russian popu-
lation yt is associated with improved living conditions in the country, expressed in
terms of average income per capita x1t (rubles/person, in 2016 prices), living space
per inhabitant x2t (m2/ person), and the number of crimes per 100 000 of persons
x4t , as well as state-stimulating payments by the state for the maintenance of one
child aged 0-17 years x3t (rubles/child in 2016 prices).
It should be noted that from expression (7) it follows that the elasticity of the mar-
ginal growth rate in terms of housing conditions is almost four times higher than in
terms of average income per capita, and 16 times higher than in terms of state pay-
ments for child support. However, given that the housing conditions in the country are
largely determined by the incomes of the population, their increase, apparently, is the
main condition for entering a regime of sustainable expanded demographic reproduc-
tion. It should be noted that this result to a certain extent also depends on the social
tension in the country, reflected in the model (7) as the crime rate, with a decrease in
which the marginal rate of population growth also increases.
Note that a definite confirmation of the validity of expression (7) is almost com-
plete coincidence with it, up to a constant factor, of its analogues, describing the pat-
terns of marginal population growth rates in the considered period in the reference
regions of the formed clusters.
The importance of increasing age-specific fertility in overcoming the demographic
crisis in Russia is evidenced by an econometric model that describes the patterns of its
level in the age groups of females at ages 25-39 years old, established in 2000-201.
under the influence of the same factors. The equation of this model, also characterized
by a coefficient of determination above 98%, has the following form:
bt (25 39) e6.65 x10.27 1.58 0.08 0.22
t x2t x3t x4t (8)
where bt (25 39) is total fertility rate of Russian females at ages 25-39 years old in a
year t.
Note that the birth rate in the group of 20-24-year-old females in the country dur-
ing the period under review did not respond to changes in living conditions and re-
mained at a constant average annual level of about 90‰. According to demographers
[7, 8], this is due to changes in the conditions of family formation associated with
increasing the age of marriage, delaying the birth of the first child until a certain level
of material security and career status is achieved.
Based on models (7) and (8), it can be concluded, that the shift to the expanded
self-reproduction regime of the Russian population is possible by 2030 with an in-
crease in the average monthly income of the population by about 50-60% compared
with their levels in 2019, which is equivalent to an increase in these indicators of
about 3-4% per year. It is assumed that income growth will contribute to a certain
improvement in the living conditions of the population.
The results presented, no way indicate the inappropriateness of the implementation
of policies aimed at reducing mortality and the resulting increase in life expectancy of
the population, which are the most important social goals of any developed society.
However, the achievement of these goals cannot bring as tangible results in terms of
ensuring high population growth rates as increasing the birth rate. To a certain extent,
this is also associated with significantly smaller physiological reserves in reducing
mortality in developed countries, compared to fertility rate reserves.
5 Conclusion
The results of the study suggest, that the intensification of depopulation of the Rus-
sian population in the last decade of the last century was due, firstly, to a significant
deterioration in the standard of living and social situation in the country in the ab-
sence of any significant measures to stimulate fertility by the state, and, secondly
unfavorable for the fertility and mortality rates the phase of demographic wave, that
faced at that time. It is the fertility rate increase in the country that should be consid-
ered as the main goal of the demographic policy in Russia, which provides shift to the
sustainable self-reproduction of its population in the long term, and the main condi-
tions for this growth in the current period, apparently, are to increase the standard of
living of the population, including and by strengthening material support for low-
income families with children.
A decrease in mortality, in contrast to an increase in fertility, does not bring signif-
icant results in terms of increasing population growth rates. However, this fact cannot
be regarded as a denial of the feasibility of efforts, aimed to reducing mortality and
increasing the life expectancy of the population, which are one of the most important
goals of the development of society.
Acknowledgements
The study was funded by the RFBR, project No. 20-010-00307 “Methodology for
assessing population health losses and justification of improving the efficiency of
healthcare systems in the regions of the Russian Federation”.
References
1. Balbo N., Billari F.C., Mills M.: Fertility in advanced societies: A review of research. Eu-
ropean Journal of Population 29(1), 1–38 (2013). DOI: 10.1007/s10680-012-9277-у.
2. Schultz T.P.: Population policies, fertility, women's human capital, and child quality. In
Handbook of development economics, vol. 4, pp. 3249–3303. (2007). DOI:
10.15185/izawol.228.
3. Kobanov, V.F., Rybakovsky, L.L.: Demograficheskoye nastoyashcheye i budushcheye
Rossii [Demographic present and future of Russia]. Ekon-Inform, Moscow (2008).
4. Hanewald K.: Explaining mortality dynamics: The role of macroeconomic fluctuations and
cause of death trends. North American Actuarial Journal 15(2), 290–314 (2011).
5. Lee R.D., Carter L.R.: Modeling and forecasting US mortality. Journal of the American
statistical association 87(419), 659–671. (1992).
6. Chi G., Zhu J.: Spatial regression models for demographic analysis. Population Research
and Policy Review 27(1), 17–42 (2008). DOI: 10.1007/s11113-007-9051-8.
7. Arkhangelskii V.N. Tendencii i perspektivy rozhdaemosti v Rossii: Demograficheskie
perspektivy Rossii [Trends and prospects of birth rate in Russia: Russia's demographic
prospects] / Edited by G.V. Osipov and S.V. Ryazantsev. Ekon-Inform, Moscow (2008).
8. Arkhangelskii V.N., Ivanova A.E., Rybakovskii L.L. Rezul`tativnost` demograficheskoj
politiki Rossii [The effectiveness of Russia's demographic policy]. Ekon-Inform, Moscow
(2016).
9. Tikhomirov N.P.: Identification and management of the population reproduction mode.
Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya 6(386), 41–48 (2016).
10. Jindrová A. et al.: Dimensionality reduction of quality of life indicators. Acta Universitatis
Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis 60(7), 147–154 (2013).
11. Gauthier A.H., Hatzius J.: Family benefits and fertility: An econometric analysis.
Population studies 51(3), 295–306 (1997), https:// doi: 10.1080/0032472031000150066.
12. Tikhomirov N.P., Tikhomirova T.M.: Assessment and management of the reproduction
potential of the Russian population. Federalism 3(95), 51–71 (2019).
13. Popova L.A.: Modern Russian demographic policy in the field of fertility: results and
directions of improvement. Economic and social changes: facts, trends, forecast 2(44), 79–
93 (2016). DOI: 10.15838 / esc. 2016.2.44.5.
14. Elizarov V.V.: Demographic development of Russia and its regions: general and special.
Living standards of the population of Russian regions 1(191), 57–71 (2014).
15. Zakharov S.V.: Modest results of pronatalist policy against the background of the long-
term evolution of fertility in Russia. Demographic Review 1(3), 6–38 (2016).